Quality Assurance
Apollo maintains a structured quality assurance process to ensure that repository content is accurate, sufficiently documented, and suitable for reuse by repository users. Quality and approval processes have evolved over time through continuous review and improvement. Depositor guidance supports researchers in preparing submissions that meet repository quality expectations.
As a general principle, only content that meets defined quality standards is published. In exceptional circumstances where limitations are identified, or where issues are raised after publication, these are transparently documented within the metadata record. Repository users may report quality concerns by contacting the repository team, providing details of the issue and the relevant record identifier (e.g. DOI), allowing issues to be reviewed and addressed where appropriate.
This approach ensures that users can make informed assessments of the quality and suitability of repository content.
Quality assurance processes are reviewed periodically and updated in response to changes in repository services, community needs, technical standards, and relevant policies.
Post-submission and Curation Process
Purpose
This section outlines the steps that occur after a research output is deposited in the Apollo repository. Apollo manages a wide range of content types, including datasets, software, methods, publications, theses, and other research outputs. While some checks vary by content type, all submissions undergo review and quality assurance to ensure they meet repository standards and are suitable for long-term access and reuse.
Submission acknowledgement and identifier assignment
Following submission:
- The repository team aims to respond to depositors within three working days.
- Submissions undergo initial checks before progressing to review and publication.
- Where required, persistent identifiers are assigned and managed in accordance with repository policies.
- Depositors are encouraged to cite persistent identifiers associated with their research outputs in related publications and other research materials.
Some workflows vary according to content type. For example, research datasets may be assigned a DOI prior to publication to support data citation, while publications that already have publisher-assigned DOIs do not require a new DOI from Apollo. Likewise, placeholder records may be used for research datasets to support publication workflows (e.g. peer review) but are not applicable to all content types.
Initial assessment and follow-up
Submissions may be assessed for specific conditions depending on the content type, including:
- Sensitive content: depositors may be contacted for additional information where personal, confidential, commercially sensitive, culturally sensitive, or otherwise restricted content is identified
- Placeholder records: for content types that support placeholder records (e.g. research datasets), depositors may be contacted with instructions for completing the submission
- Human participant data: depositors may be required to provide evidence that consent permits sharing through an openly available repository and to confirm that data have been appropriately anonymised where required
- Copyright and permissions: depositors may be asked to provide evidence that they hold the necessary rights to share the submitted material
- Access conditions: repository staff may review embargoes or other access restrictions to ensure they are applied appropriately.
Only finalised submissions are processed for repository publication.
Pre-publication quality assurance checks
The scope and depth of review varies according to content type, but all submissions are assessed for compliance with repository, legal, ethical, metadata, and accessibility requirements. The specific checks performed depend on the nature of the research output and the level of curation required.
All finalised submissions undergo structured review before approval. Checks include:
- Verification of depositor affiliation
- Confirmation of rights to share the research output
- Assessment of confidential or restricted information
- Verification of consent, permissions and ethical approval where applicable
- Confirmation that files open correctly
- For large datasets, checks are conducted on a representative sample of files, including different file formats
- Files requiring unavailable proprietary software may not be fully reviewed, in which case assessment may be limited to file identification, metadata, and accompanying documentation
- Verification that files match their descriptions
- Assessment of metadata completeness and quality
- Verification that appropriate supporting documentation is provided where required (e.g. README files, codebooks, data dictionaries, abstracts, or other contextual information)
- Evaluation of file formats for long-term access and preservation
- Recommendations for alternative formats where required
- Confirmation of links to associated outputs (e.g. actively checking for corresponding research articles to link to)
- Collection of additional identifiers (e.g. external email address for long-term contact, or ORCID iDs)
Where issues are identified, depositors are contacted and required to resolve them before publication.
Publication and linking
Once approved:
- The research output is published in the repository
- Depositors receive confirmation of publication from the repository team
- The research output is linked to associated publications, datasets, software, theses, and other related outputs where appropriate
These links are established through persistent identifiers (e.g. DOIs), enhancing discoverability and citation. A recommended citation is provided on repository records to support consistent attribution and reuse.
Embargo and access management
If an embargo is applied:
- The deposited content is not publicly accessible during the embargo period
- Metadata remains publicly visible and discoverable
- Access requests may be managed via mediated services such as the Request a Copy service, where applicable
Embargoes are reviewed and lifted in accordance with the conditions specified at deposit and applicable repository policies.
Post-publication responsibilities and quality assurance
After publication:
- Repository staff may follow up with depositors if issues are identified
- Depositors remain responsible for responding to requests for access to embargoed content through mediated access services, such as the Request a Copy service
- Repository records may be updated with additional links and metadata enhancements
- Where changes to deposited files require the creation of a new version, DOI versioning is applied in accordance with repository policies
- Contact details (including non-institutional email addresses) are retained to support long-term communication and issue resolution.
Role in quality assurance
These processes ensure that:
- repository content meets defined quality, legal, and ethical standards
- submissions are sufficiently documented to support understanding and reuse
- research outputs are accurately described, accessible, and linked within the wider research context
The specific checks applied may vary by content type. For example, research datasets and software may require review of file formats and technical documentation, while publications and theses may require additional checks relating to copyright, licensing, access conditions, and publisher policies.
The structured review workflow supports both pre‑publication validation and ongoing quality management, contributing to the overall trustworthiness of Apollo’s holdings.
Related policies and guidance
Apollo’s quality assurance processes are supported by a range of policies and guidance documents, including:
| Document / Policy | Definition & Purpose |
|---|---|
| Repository Terms of Use | defines depositor responsibilities and conditions of access |
| Deposit Licence Agreement | outlines rights granted to the repository and responsibilities of depositors |
| Apollo Metadata Model | describes metadata standards and structures applied within the repository |
| Digital Preservation Policy | sets out the approach to long-term preservation of repository content |
| Notice and Takedown Policy | defines procedures for handling legal or ethical concerns relating to repository content |
| Research Data Management Guidance | provides recommendations for preparing, documenting, managing, and sharing high-quality research data |
| Deposit guidance | supports depositors in ensuring submissions meet repository quality expectations |
| Cambridge open research policies and frameworks | covers the University of Cambridge's key open research policies and frameworks, providing guidance on open access, research data management, self-archiving, repository use, and related requirements that support making research outputs as open as possible while protecting legitimate restrictions |
These documents collectively ensure that repository content is managed in accordance with defined quality, legal, technical, and preservation standards.